The Science Crackpot Index and Bingo Game
Discussing science online can often be a frustrating experience if no quality controls are in place, which is often the case. As part useful reference and part entertainment PF has put together an adequate list of common attributes associated with dubious scientific discussion. Next time you’re in a discussion, check this list to see if your participants are debating in good faith or not.
Thanks to the dozen or so PF staff and advisors who helped compile this list. Enjoy our Physics Forums Crackpot Index!
Table of Contents
Style and Formatting
5 points: Obvious copy and paste
5 points: Wall of Text
5 points: Over-the-top special formatting
20 points: No math shown
20 points: Excessive math without consistency or explanations
Telling Quotes
5 points: “you don’t allow open-minded people to post about the subject”
5 points: “I am thinking out of the box”
5 points: “Science is all about asking questions”
5 points: “you are censoring discussion”
10 points: “Einstein was just a clerk”
10 points: “Einstein was bad at math”
15 points: “I’ve been working on this for 20 years”
15 points: “people didn’t believe Galileo initially”
20 points: “Units here ≠ units here”
20 points: “Scientists/others try to ban/suppress my theory”
30 points: “Because I haven’t had formal training I can see things others might have missed”
30 points: “I’m not a physicist, but…”
30 points: “I don’t know the math”
50 points: “I just discovered the laws of physics are wrong”
Refuting the establishment
5 points: You can’t conclude something you don’t have direct evidence for
15 points: Science is wrong because it doesn’t do logic correctly
20 points: Skeptical of the standard model
25 points: Claiming Einstein was a radical in his day
25 points: Claiming that Relativity is only accepted due to Einstein’s reputation
25 points: Claiming that Einstein plagiarized his work
30 points: Claiming Einstein is wrong
30 points: Claiming Newton is wrong
Desperate Measures
5 points: Putting mentors/science advisors on ignore.
5 points: Post offers a complicated analogy rather than a descriptive model
10 points: Ignoring critiques.
10 points: Profane, insulting, threatening PMs to complain about their Notice/Infraction…
50 points: Creating a sockpuppet to agree with you.
Questionable References
5 points: Uses http://vixra.org or similar reference
5 points: Link URL contains multiple hyphens
5 points: Link URL domain is something other than .com .edu .org or .gov
10 points: Posting under the pretense of asking a question
10 points: References to simplified models designed for TV shows etc
15 points: Digging up 100-year-old papers looking for a secret
15 points: Links to article written by a content writing company
20 points: Links to paper published on personal website
20 points: Personal blog link
30 points: Citing or quoting sources in support of their position which in reality refute their position
Day Dreamers
15 points: Science is wrong because of my philosophical beliefs
15 points: Using words without a proper definition
40 points: Mentions science fiction, UFOs, or pseudoscience
40 points: Includes the words like “truths”, “God”, “secret”, “breakthrough”, “revolutionary”, “mystery”
50 points: Includes topics from our banned topic list
Bonus! Turn it into a Crackpot Bingo game!
Source: member micromass
Resources:
A Layman’s Guide to: Lies, Damned Lies and Pseudoscience
John Baez’s Original Crackpot Index
I have a BS in Information Sciences from UW-Milwaukee. I’ve helped manage Physics Forums for over 22 years. I enjoy learning and discussing new scientific developments. STEM communication and policy are big interests as well. Currently a Sr. SEO Specialist at Shopify and writer at importsem.com
Good compilation!
5 points: Uses http://vixra.org or similar referenceI had the misfortune of stumbling upon that website recently. Let's just say I made a hasty exit, because I didn't know whether to laugh, to pity those posting there, or if I would end up throwing my laptop across the room in frustration.
I sent a link from there to my best friend, and she laughed her rear-end off.
I'm pretty sure they can read and comprehend ok. They just don't really agree with the rules. It's a bit like various criminal behaviours. E.g., a guy knows it's a crime to have sex with an underage child, but goes ahead and does it anyway because society's "rules" don't align with his own need for gratification…I covered that in #3.
Zz.
Some rebels intrigue me and provoke my thoughts but since they are not on the mainstream they must be disregarded. They write well, I might grade their articles A for clarity, coherence, and cadence but then the contents are questionable.
Btw, I like conciseness especially when it's correct. Somebody put in a nutshell the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics and quoted "Boson clump, Fermion repel", I'm impressed that I wrote a haiku.. the quantum of poetry :D
"Bedlam in hadron
Boson clump, Fermion repel
Profound existence."
In this day and age it can be very difficult to sort the cracked pots from the ones that are merely dirtied from use. As such, I have come up with the following rule that should make it much easier for the layman to find the cracks.
Did whatever you read or heard present its arguments in a clear, concise manner and make near-perfect sense even though you've never studied science before? Yes? It's a crackpot.
2. They can't read and/or can't comprehend. They may have read the PF Rules, but they didn't understand what they've agreed to (don't laughed. I've seen this excuse being used!).I'm pretty sure they can read and comprehend ok. They just don't really agree with the rules. It's a bit like various criminal behaviours. E.g., a guy knows it's a crime to have sex with an underage child, but goes ahead and does it anyway because society's "rules" don't align with his own need for gratification…
Now that it has quiet down a bit, I'll go all out and blast out the crackpots that come into this forum for a set of characteristics that aren't covered in the list, and something that hasn't been talked about.
1. They are liars and have no integrity. Why? They come here and explicitly agreed to abide by the PF Rules. But then, they turn around a break those rules. So they lied. Their agreement means nothing. This then makes everything they claim questionable. Why would you believe anything from them if their words can't be trusted?
2. They can't read and/or can't comprehend. They may have read the PF Rules, but they didn't understand what they've agreed to (don't laughed. I've seen this excuse being used!). So if they can't understand something as simple as our rules, what are the odds they can understand the physics that they were tackling? Again, it raises questions of what they are able to comprehend. Why would anyone listen or pay attention to someone like that?
3. They have no intention to respect anything, and don't care. This is easy. You show no respect, you get no respect. If you do not care about how we do business here, why should we care about what you have to say? Tit for tat.
Zz.Thank you ZZ. That reminded me of a CPP from a while back.
I did experiments this morning, confirming that my invention is 99.95 efficient.
—————————-
+/- 2 or 3 orders of magnitude. :tongue2:
Are there any female crackpots? I've never encountered one.I've met many. The ones that stand out in my memory had a prior emotional allegiance to some new age, paranormal, or religious belief that stood in the way of them putting much effort into appreciating science.
I've come across one pseudo-physicist who claimed to be female. A fair few "alternative medicine" practitioners are female – I think they count.
Are there any female crackpots? I've never encountered one.
It's hard to argue against that, ZapperZ.
And I've found out that it can be dangerous to follow the Crackpot road.
Now that it has quiet down a bit, I'll go all out and blast out the crackpots that come into this forum for a set of characteristics that aren't covered in the list, and something that hasn't been talked about.
1. They are liars and have no integrity. Why? They come here and explicitly agreed to abide by the PF Rules. But then, they turn around a break those rules. So they lied. Their agreement means nothing. This then makes everything they claim questionable. Why would you believe anything from them if their words can't be trusted?
2. They can't read and/or can't comprehend. They may have read the PF Rules, but they didn't understand what they've agreed to (don't laughed. I've seen this excuse being used!). So if they can't understand something as simple as our rules, what are the odds they can understand the physics that they were tackling? Again, it raises questions of what they are able to comprehend. Why would anyone listen or pay attention to someone like that?
3. They have no intention to respect anything, and don't care. This is easy. You show no respect, you get no respect. If you do not care about how we do business here, why should we care about what you have to say? Tit for tat.
Zz.
That was fun to read.
I know it might seem a bit overlong for a casual bookworm, but the key is to imagine it being a hip-hop song.
There's a strongly-defined rythm, you see, with the perpetrator repeating the same arguments in nice, regular intervals. He's the chorus here, providing emotionally punctuated counterpoints to other members' rapping their souls away.
Story-wise, the protagonist is the martial hero reaffirming his resolve over and over again, like Leonidas choosing to defend his doomed position despite insurmountable odds.
The Persians attack in billions upon billions of stanzas, with frontal assaults and sneaky attacks to the rear. Their name is legion and though they have no pity they try to seduce the hero away from his post.
The general structure of the lyrics is interesting too, with a strong beginning setting up the stakes, very level action throughout the 2/3rds of the running time – toned down as if intentionally refusing to advance the plot. Then there's an elated, almost climactic development around page #10, where the protagonist seems to give up under the relentless assault, only to triumphantly return to his duty as the eternal guardian in a surprise twist, somewhere in the vicinity of post #200.
In the closing lines the Persians claim victory, even as the protagonist stands undefeated among the corpses of argumentation.
Of course, it could have been better. The protagonist could have asserted his martyrdom in persecution by the Gilliamesque behemoth of the Establishment. He could have called upon gods of physcis to stand by his side and guide his spear-hand. All those would, likely, increase the immediate consummability of the thread, but at the risk of forcing the story to seek premature conclusion.
All in all, a tour de force and a credit to all involved.
Jokes aside, I think this one could have been saved. The huge volume and very short timespan in which the thread reached the conclusion worked against the purpose of education. It takes time to relfect upon what you're told, especially if the beliefs are held very strongly. The amount of responses in such a short time simply turned the defence mechanisms on, forcing the man to blankly repeat his arguments.
Perhaps if the forum members were less eager to correct the errors of his ways, he'd get there. In time.
This thread gives a good example of the futility of attempting to educate someone who refuses to be educated – 1.5 Times the Speed of Light.
At the time, I had been re-reading relativity theory and felt informed enough to contribute. Many people tried over the course of 13 pages to get the OP to see the error of his ways but nothing would sway him from his initial belief that someone was traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light – even when he was presented with his own statements that contridicted his belief! After the thread was locked, he PM'd me to continue the discussion but I chose not to discuss it further as I didn't believe that anything would change.
It was CBS News not BBC… O.o
Thanks for the info about susskind vs. kaku, I'll read about it later.
Btw, is Miles Mathis a crackpot? I find his radical view of physics intriguing and thought provoking… and I refuted his thoughts about the big bang that was cited in a thread.
Crackpot doesn't hold water, what little water it may hold are usually dried up by empirical evidences and/or mathematical proof.
But what if the radical remarks happened to came from Michio Kaku? BBC quoted him about the "higgs boson caused the big bang"… is that 50 points in the index or what? Sean Carroll and Matt Strassler disagreed and refuted Kaku on their separate blog. It was going to be a lopsided discussion without Kaku to defend himself so even I don't understand the higgs mechanism myself, I defended Kaku especially from the morons and sycophants.Leonard susskind published a paper to refute kaku's claims about worm holes and time travel.
Crackpot doesn't hold water, what little water it may hold are usually dried up by empirical evidences and/or mathematical proof.
But what if the radical remarks happened to came from Michio Kaku? BBC quoted him about the "higgs boson caused the big bang"… is that 50 points in the index or what? Sean Carroll and Matt Strassler disagreed and refuted Kaku on their separate blog. It was going to be a lopsided discussion without Kaku to defend himself so even I don't understand the higgs mechanism myself, I defended Kaku especially from the morons and sycophants.
Alright. I think I win this game:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/home-quantum-energy-generator [Broken]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEBd_igOGs&feature=player_detailpage#t=18
Almost as good as the keshe reactor guy.
And he has collected $16k. Crackpottery pays.Yes, obviously it can pay. :grumpy:
Alright. I think I win this game:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/home-quantum-energy-generator [Broken]And he has collected $16k. Crackpottery pays.
Alright. I think I win this game:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/home-quantum-energy-generator [Broken]
Arrogance: offensive display of superiority[SUP]1 [/SUP]or self-importance; overbearing pride.
In view of this definition, I'm afraid I can't agree with you.Ridicule: Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous[SUP]2[/SUP] laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing.
[SUP]2[/SUP] Contempt:The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior[SUP]1[/SUP], base, or worthless; scorn.
[SUP]1[/SUP] Inferior: Antonym of superior.
If that doesn't convince then as I said with respect to another point- we have to agree to differ.
I am tired of this argument now, I will not budge from my sense of proprieties and neither will you. The discussion now has come to a point that in my humble opinion it can not be concluded without someone withdrawing. And hence I do so. There is work to be done and I have delayed them long enough.
My best Regards.
The occupation of ridiculing IMO is an occupation of arrogance.Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
In view of this definition, I'm afraid I can't agree with you.
The occupation of ridiculing IMO is an occupation of arrogance. Interesting point. Hadn't considered that.
No, most recent examples as you say did not need 'serious' promoting but if they weren't promoted at all we wouldn't even know about it. My main point was that many cranks propound theories that are in open contradiction to experimentally established facts and try to mould the facts to fit the theory. I interpreted promoting as trying to gain acceptance of the theory. Which anyone with a new theory would do.
However the lack of promoting theories has on few occasions hindered the progress. An example would be Chandrashekhar's theory and the ridicule and suppression it faced because of Eddington, had his theory been promoted then astrophysics would have had a considerable head-start.
Theories like string theory and Zz's example of induced fit vs. lock and key mechanicsm have also you will note needed a bit of promoting in face of a more generally accepted theory.
Regards.
One who believes that they are correct over the rest of the scientific community AND promotes their own belief over established theories.I am afraid I can't agree with that definition as taken absolutely at its face value it would put all the establishers of present theories in that category.There are very few examples (Darwin and speciation might be one of them) and none that I can think of from after the scientific method was established in the 19th century of establishers of present theories who promoted their own belief "over established theories". Quantum mechanics and relativity, for example, are credible in large part because under the appropriate conditions they reduce to the previously accepted classical theories.
And its not as if Einstein ever had to seriously "promote" relativity over established theories. After a reasonable period of initial skepticism to digest what he was saying, the community embraced SR with enthusiasm appropriate for a solution to one of the great unsolved problems of the past half-century.
One who believes that they are correct over the rest of the scientific community AND promotes their own belief over established theories.I am afraid I can't agree with that definition as taken absolutely at its face value it would put all the establishers of present theories in that category. A better definition would someone whose theories go against the established theory and the experimental evidence present to support the theory. Though your definition is certainly an indicator of a crank but does not prove it definitely.
I agree with Bandersnatch's point about how it's ok to ridicule arrogance.The occupation of ridiculing IMO is an occupation of arrogance. Ridicule will be often (in my limited experience) would just aggravate the crank further and the crank will start looking at himself/herself as a martyr to the cause making ridicule even more counter-productive.
Yeah — the Dunning-Kruger effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger :eek:
:biggrin:Yes, that is probably the case with some cranks but as Drakkith pointed out many of these are often highly educated personae with just as high claims with of course nothing to substantiate them with as far as experimental evidence is concerned. They are more fanatics than reasoners of science convinced at their own theories of the universe to the point that they refute the proof universe provides itself.
I agree with Bandersnatch's point about how it's ok to ridicule arrogance. The more physics I learn, the more embarrassment I feel when rememberling the arrogance of my youth. :blushing:
[…] It seems in some (many?) cases, ignorance and stupidity can lead to arrogance. And that shell is very hard – and I guess in some cases impossible – to break through.Yeah — the Dunning-Kruger effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger :eek:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]:biggrin:
I'd agree except that many times they have a perfectly reasonable ability to logically analyze and are smart, intelligent people. Some have PHD's or other degrees that they've earned at regular colleges.
In my opinion, a crackpot is someone who believes that they are correct over the rest of the scientific community AND promotes their own belief over established theories.Yes, in this case, it has got to be something about personal bias getting in the way.
Why and or how this becomes the case, is really beyond me. I was never instructed to believe that for any particular reason I was more likely to be "more right" than anyone else unless I could prove it. When I was a little girl, my father proudly told a story of disproving something his chemistry teacher kept going on about, and being very stern in the "The greatest thing about science is that the ego lays with the evidence, not with the presenter of the evidence"
Learning to separate yourself from your research is a must. Which is very difficult when you're truly invested and quite frankly, biased in the results.
I've always perceived crackpots as people with an inability to logically analyze things. They have no internal checkpoints by which they view the world. For example, when they ponder on a new idea, they don't put it through the same set of rigorous questions that I would (and I suspect, many of the other members here would).I'd agree except that many times they have a perfectly reasonable ability to logically analyze and are smart, intelligent people. Some have PHD's or other degrees that they've earned at regular colleges.
In my opinion, a crackpot is someone who believes that they are correct over the rest of the scientific community AND promotes their own belief over established theories.
I used to agree with you, Enigman. Then I spent time arguing with them, trying to explain gently how their "theories" were inconsistent with experiment, other theories, or (in most cases) within themselves. While a very few of them listened, the vast majority simply declared me a soulless minion of orthodoxy and carried on none the wiser.I have the same experience.
As far as I see the things from my ill-educated vantage point of my comfy armchair, it's neither ignorance nor stupidity that elicits or deserves ridicule, but the arrogance.I think so too. It seems in some (many?) cases, ignorance and stupidity can lead to arrogance. And that shell is very hard – and I guess in some cases impossible – to break through.
Regarding the question of how to deal with it, I see education and humor as tools. I guess it's a matter of context; age, education, willingness to think and learn.
When I was very young, I remember I had an idea that the Moon and the Sun were the same object. In the day, the Sun was shining bright, in the night, it was just shining less bright. This is pretty cute, I think. Now I am older and better educated. If I would hold on to my prior belief, it would not be cute anymore, it would be ridiculous.
I also very much like this quote by Michael Shermer:
You want to have a mind open enough to accept radical new ideas, but not so open that your brains fall out. (from Baloney Detection Kit, (Dr. Michael Shermer)).
I used to agree with you, Enigman. Then I spent time arguing with them, trying to explain gently how their "theories" were inconsistent with experiment, other theories, or (in most cases) within themselves. While a very few of them listened, the vast majority simply declared me a soulless minion of orthodoxy and carried on none the wiser.
I agree that ridicule probably isn't immediately helpful, but what are your options when someone simply rejects reason and experiment while vigorously denying that they are doing either? I eventually went with "giving up", which is why I read and post here.Could it be less of an object of the material at hand, and more of something that stems from a lack of concrete ability to analyze?
I've always perceived crackpots as people with an inability to logically analyze things. They have no internal checkpoints by which they view the world. For example, when they ponder on a new idea, they don't put it through the same set of rigorous questions that I would (and I suspect, many of the other members here would).
You know, the typical questions: How is this possible? How does this fit in with accepted theory? What motivates or instigates this action? Is it mathematically sound? Does it withstand experiment (ie can it be repeated)? Does it withstand peer review?
Whenever I either think of a "new" idea, or come upon an idea I've not yet seen before that isn't "accepted as standard", I work through most of these in my head and do further research. If it doesn't seem plausible after that, it likely isn't.
Whereas with crackpots, there is a certain personal bias that blocks any true rigorous analysis. It's "my idea and therefore right" stands blatantly in the way.
As far as I see the things from my ill-educated vantage point of my comfy armchair, it's neither ignorance nor stupidity that elicits or deserves ridicule, but the arrogance.
Ridiculing the ignorant is counterproductive to educating them, ridiculing the stupid is akin to laughing at the disabled because they can't run as fast as you. But when somebody is so full of himself so as to not only trust his own faculties over the collected effort of the rest of the world, but demand others to do the same, he needs to be slaped in the face.
With a fish, preferably, but a healthy dose of ridiciule would do just the same.
Whether it serves as a wake-up call, or just to prevent the spread of the infection, the world will be thus made a better place.
Mabe this is just me, but I find arrogance disruptive to the society, wherever it pops up. Arrogance breeds confidence, which might fool other people in believing you despite the near-perfect vacuum where the substance of your claims ought to be.
There's more people in the world than ever before, so either you learn to coexist and cooperate with your fellow humans, or dream of being the king of the world where it doesn't affect others.I agree. I think it's both arrogance and lack of purpose/higher goal. If the crackpot's main object was to learn and be productive, the baseless theories and ignorance would soon stop and the said individual will learn.
IMO the essence of crackpottery is stupidity, not ignorance. Of course many of them are ignorant as well, but not all. The ones who got a mainstream science education before they lost the plot are usually more fun to watch (from a safe distance!).
Indeed. I think this is akin to how some people get actual enjoyment from tormenting others, or playing practical jokes on someone whose temperament is not suited to being on the receiving end of such. I.e., it's a form of bullying.As far as I see the things from my ill-educated vantage point of my comfy armchair, it's neither ignorance nor stupidity that elicits or deserves ridicule, but the arrogance.
Ridiculing the ignorant is counterproductive to educating them, ridiculing the stupid is akin to laughing at the disabled because they can't run as fast as you. But when somebody is so full of himself so as to not only trust his own faculties over the collected effort of the rest of the world, but demand others to do the same, he needs to be slaped in the face.
With a fish, preferably, but a healthy dose of ridiciule would do just the same.
Whether it serves as a wake-up call, or just to prevent the spread of the infection, the world will be thus made a better place.
Mabe this is just me, but I find arrogance disruptive to the society, wherever it pops up. Arrogance breeds confidence, which might fool other people in believing you despite the near-perfect vacuum where the substance of your claims ought to be.
There's more people in the world than ever before, so either you learn to coexist and cooperate with your fellow humans, or dream of being the king of the world where it doesn't affect others.
I've seen some crackpot in different sites. There is a "physics professor" telling that the standard model is wrong because he says so. And an "experimental physicist" who hates CERN squandering money whereas the methods of her "team" is better. And some sockpuppets on the same IP address.
I don't know what to do with them, but for the meantime I don't interact with them reasoning that it would be equivalent to touching crap with my bare hand, on the other hand interaction with them might aggravate their condition.
Inasmuch ridicule starts as education ends we lose the chance to find what would have occurred in case that education had been pursued further. It may well have a negative result but the hope for a positive one is enough for me to pursue it.I used to agree with you, Enigman. Then I spent time arguing with them, trying to explain gently how their "theories" were inconsistent with experiment, other theories, or (in most cases) within themselves. While a very few of them listened, the vast majority simply declared me a soulless minion of orthodoxy and carried on none the wiser.
I agree that ridicule probably isn't immediately helpful, but what are your options when someone simply rejects reason and experiment while vigorously denying that they are doing either? I eventually went with "giving up", which is why I read and post here.
PF is quite enough for me now, when I learn enough here to teach, well perhaps…I think young Greg did forget one.
When the apparently, "smart one" talks, in the language of the Jabberwocky, beware……..
:devil: